(The statement follows:) List of Civilian Conservation Corps camps to be closed beginning May 31, 1938 List of Civilian Conservation Corps camps to be closed beginning May 31, 1938-Con. Now, if this additional money is made avilable, will any of those camps be closed, and if so, which ones? Mr. FECHNER. I could not answer that definitely. I think a small number of them will be closed, because I understand that a small number of those camps will complete their work project by May 31. They would have been closed on March 31 normally, but because it was not considered to be economical to move a camp and operate it just for a few months, the technical service left the camps in their present location. Mr. WOODRUM. Is it safe to say that none of them will be closed except those that have completed their work programs? Mr. FECHNER. That is my judgment, excluding the military and naval-reservation camps. Mr. BACON. I see in this list that you are going to close 31 camps in military reservations that have not completed their programs; that you are going to do that arbitrarily on July 31; and these are all in this list. Mr. FECHNER. That is correct, Mr. Bacon. Mr. CANNON. Is it not correct that all those camps will be closed and reopened in some other locality where they are needed? Mr. FECHNER. Yes, sir. Mr. CANNON. So in the end there will be no change in the number of camps? Mr. FECHNER. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And there is no change in the number of boys that get jobs? Mr. FECHNER. No, sir. Mr. WOODRUM. There is some movement of camps as of April 1, and that, I think, you have explained to us. It is entirely because of completing work or because of moving it from one place to another? Mr. FECHNER. Yes, sir; the winter- and summer-location movement. That has been in effect from the very first season of this work. Particularly in the West there are lots of areas where we can only work in the summer, and so we move a company up there and work as long as climate and weather conditions will permit, and then in the fall, when snow and bad weather drive us out, we go back to a winter location somewhere in that general area. That has been going on, from winter to summer location, and from summer to winter location, ever since the work started. Mr. CANNON. Returning to the question of the disposition of surplus property, Mr. Fechner, there have been stories to the effect that on occasion, where a camp has been discontinued, valuable property has been piled up in a heap and burned. Is it possible that some agency which had authority over a local subdivision might have exercised its prerogative and taken over one of these camps and failed to make a return of destroyed property? Mr. FECHNER. I do not think so; but I am very glad to give you all the information I have on that. These four departments have laws and regulations governing them which have been in effect for many years. If we take as an example the War Department, the War Department has specific laws and regulations which direct how they shall dispose of property that is no longer serviceable. I know of one instance that occurred in Pennsylvania where, to my regret, and I think the regret of the War Department, we abandoned the camp. It had completed its work, and the camp commander did get unserviceable property that could not be used by the Civilian Conservation Corps any more, and did pile it up and burn it, and some of the people in the community made quite a disturbance about it. They represented that we had burned up property that could have been of service and value to themselves and to others. I do not believe it could have been, but nevertheless, that incident being called to my attention, I instructed the War Department and the other agencies not to do anything like that again, and I am sure that it will not be done. Another instance happened in Virginia. A camp was abandoned in Virginia, and the technical service had a lot of axes, mattocks, rakes, and other hand tools at that time that were absolutely worn out. They were of no value whatever, and they sawed the handles off of the axes and the other implements and destroyed them. Well, somebody down there said that we were destroying good tools that the poor farmers down there could have used. Well, they could not have used them. They were unsafe to use. They were absolutely of no value whatever, and instead of letting these worn-out hand tools be distributed, with the Government's mark on them, throughout the community, where they would be lying around, with some Government mark on them, where they would always be subject to suspicion as to how the party got them, the Department of Agriculture, I believe very properly, destroyed those tools that were of no value whatever and which were a safety hazard. But those things are not going to happen any more. Those two incidents did happen. I do not know of any others. Mr. CANNON. They occasioned widespread criticism which, as you say now, was wholly unjustified, but which should be avoided in the future. Mr. FECHNER. Yes, sir. Mr. TABER. I know of one case in Upper Lisle, in New York State, southeast of my district, where there was in operation a destruction of property that was absolutely unjustified. Mr. FECHNER. I would be very glad to know about it. Mr. TABER. There is no question about it. They burned up all sorts of property-rubber coats, boots, tools, all kinds of clothing, and burned up the lumber and all that sort of thing. There was another case where, just recently, they tore down plants in such a way that the result is absolutely a total loss so far as the lumber goes. It was ruined absolutely in tearing it down. That is just within the last 2 or 3 months. Mr. CANNON. Was that done under the authority of Mr. Fechner's organization or was it done by some other department, such as the War Department? Mr. TABER. I do not know. Mr. CANNON. And was it done in compliance with the statute or contrary to the statute? Mr. TABER. I do not know. I do not care. If it was done wantonly, it is not a satisfactory situation. Mr. FECHNER. May I say this in addition: We turned over a very large number of these camps that were no longer needed by the Civilian Conservation Corps to other organizations-Federal organizations-but everybody identifies those camps as C. C. C. camps. It does not matter who operates them; they say they are C. C. C. camps, and the C. C. C. gets the blame for anything that happens there. Now, I am not attempting to evade any responsibility, but I do know that some camps that have been turned over to other agencies have incurred criticism which was passed on to the C. C. C. when, we were not responsible for it and could not avoid it. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fechner, in any of these cases where property was destoyed, has the destruction been on account of contagious diseases that have broken out or sanitary conditions? Mr. FECHNER. I do not recall anything of that kind, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BACON. Mr. Fechner, as far as I can get it, your position is that you would be perfectly willing to keep these 31 camps on Army reservations until they have completed their projects. You would like to do that, would you not? Mr. FECHNER. Well, when I approved the location on an Army reservation, I thought the project was good and justifiable; yes, sir. Mr. BACON. And therefore, if this resolution passes, you will be able to keep all the camps now in existence until their projects are finished, with the exception of the 31 Army camps? Mr. FECHNER. I expect so. That would be my intention. Mr. BACON. The only reason you are giving up the 31 Army camps where projects are not finished is due to the direct command of the President? Mr. FECHNER. We do not feel that the continuance of these projects is within our statutory authority, Mr. Bacon. Mr. BACON. I want the facts; and if that is the fact, I want it in the record. It is generally known. Mr. FECHNER. I will say again, though, that we are controlled by the language of the act, and the language of the act does not authorize us to build airports for anybody. |